Civitas Review

110 Year Olds Vote Strong in NC

36
Oct
28

So far in early voting 110 year olds have  made a pretty good showing; 2214 of them have voted either by mail or at a one-stop site (214 by mail and 2,000 at early voting sites).  There are 1,420 Democrats in this group, 717 Republicans and 77 Unaffiliated voters.

Nothing against very old voters, but it is funny that these 110 year olds live in only 34 counties and 87% of them live in 4 counties –  Guilford has voted 681 of them so far, Forsyth – 581, Cumberland – 427 and Davidson voted 230.

Some more facts about these older voters:  1,923 of this year's group also voted in the 2008 General Election during early voting – they were only 108 back then.  In 2008 a total 9,688 108 year olds voted early.

And just in case you thought 110 was pretty old, Gaston County data shows that  a 154 year old voter has cast a ballot and Granville County's data reflects a voter who is 160 years old.

Absentee data is available for download from the State Board of Elections website.

24 Comments on this post

  • Anonymous says:
    Oct 29 at 04:42

    I haven't voted yet this year, so help me jog my memory: Do poll workers have access to voters' birthdays at early voting sites? If so, how could 2,000 110 year olds go undetected? Lots of 85 year olds signing up to help out for some good old fashioned voter fraud fun?

    If poll workers do not have access to birthday information, that would explain a lot…

  • Sandra says:
    Oct 29 at 11:37

    It could be that the voters' birthday was keyed in wrong at the time of registration. That is not fraud. If I go to vote and my birthday is entered incorrectly it doesn't make me ineligible to vote. As long as you are a resident of NC and fulfill all other requirements, you can vote. If the register's office put down your age as 110 instead of 75 then it only hurts the data record keeping on the age of voters.

  • Bane Windlow says:
    Oct 31 at 12:20

    There is no possible way that there are over 2,000 people in North Carolina who are at least 110 years old. I think you'd be hard pressed to find that many people at that age in the entire country. Clearly, these peoples' ages is a clerical error.

  • Carl says:
    Oct 31 at 18:51

    We just got a mailer indicating that we are still registered to vote in MD despite moving to NC and getting drivers licenses and cars registered in early 2009. You would think that when I had 0 income and 0 days residency, I would no longer be a voter there. Does ACORN have people making fake IDs so they can vote in my name in MD?

  • Anonymous says:
    Nov 01 at 23:16

    Well, it's either a LOT of clerical errors, or there's some serious fraud going on. Sadly, I'm going with the latter. Why is it that we need to show ID for small things like a credit card purchase or picking up tickets at "Will Call", but not for voting?

  • apokalupsis says:
    Nov 04 at 02:30

    At issue here is proper purging of voters upon death.

    If you are not recognized as deceased, then you get to vote.

    Try calling the local BOE and giving your name and address as that of someone you know who passed away years back. If they say, "Yep, you're still supposed to vote at this precinct location", then you can likely go cast a ballot! The poll worker is not going to check your ID, and unless they are old as dirt and happened to go to school with the person you're pretending to be then you will not be recognized as a fraudster.

    Think the ACORN thugs have a problem scanning the obits from 20 years ago or so and trying their luck?

    This is just one facet of the rampant fraud.

    Remember too, that to come out a winner, you don't have to perpetrate the fraud everywhere. All you need to do is win in key legislative districts and by small margins.

    We are being played, and sadly most not only don't realize it but refuse to accept the truth. That's why it is so very hard to circumvent.

  • Joyce McCloy says:
    Nov 04 at 12:31

    This is a serious allegation. Can you please cite the data, so that this can be addressed with county BoE's and the State BoE?

    Thank you.

  • George says:
    Nov 04 at 19:50

    Lots of numbers here. Where's the data to back them up?

  • Steve says:
    Nov 05 at 09:27

    Hmmm…its 2010, so 110 year olds would be born in 1900. Since in some computer systems, the default earliest year you can enter is 1900, could this be because the year field was simply not filled in. Or perhaps the date at all…I wonder if they were all born on 1/1/1900.

  • Joyce McCloy says:
    Nov 05 at 14:50

    There are no 110 year old voters in North Carolina. This isn't an indication of fraud either. Read on.

    I emailed Don Wright, the General Counsel for the North Carolina State Board of Elections to inquire about the "110 year old" voters.

    He replied today. Here's that email:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: Civitas writes that 2,214 "110 year olds" voted in NC
    Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:17:24 -0400
    From: Wright, Don
    To: Joyce McCloy

    Joyce,

    When a county does not have a birth date for a voter, they use a default date for that voters birth date and most counties use 1/1/1900. If these voters show up to vote, the pollworkers inquire as to their correct birth date and that information is added. Over the past few years, we have reduced the number of default birth date voters. And after this election the number of default birth date voters will be reduced even further.

    There were millions of voters transferred from the county paper VR records to the Statewide VR database around 2000. Some of the county’s older VR data did not have the voter’s birth date and it was not required at the time that voter registered. Since that time, we have be able to reduce the number of such voters down to a little over two thousand.

    Sincerely,

    Don Wright
    General Counsel
    NC State Board of Elections

    From: Joyce McCloy [mailto:jmc27106@earthlink.net]
    Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:36 PM
    To: Wright, Don
    Subject: Civitas writes that 2,214 "110 year olds" voted in NC

    North Carolina State Board of Elections
    Don Wright, General Counsel

    Dear Don,

    I read the most alarming article at the Civitas website, that claims that 2,214 "110 year olds" have voted
    during early voting. Below is the article. Can the NC SBoE advise what the facts are in this instance?
    Is this correct?

  • Carl says:
    Nov 05 at 16:16

    Aw, shucks! I should have voted for my Dad who died in 1999, for Uncle Bob, for my two grampas, …
    I might have had the swing vote in Concord to make Kissell get a real job.

  • apokalupsis says:
    Nov 05 at 19:54

    OK Joyce – fair enough. Don says there are no 110 year old voters. What he DID NOT say was why the data was not corrected prior to an election.

    Did these folks he described not have contact info on file in the precincts where they were registered?

    Could BOE not simply send a form letter or call them to update the records?

    When they DID show up to cast a ballot, or vote by mail, etc., did they have to show proof of residency or photo ID in order to update their registration data or vote?

    Now ask him the relevant questions and let's see if he gives you an honest, direct answer. Here are your questions:

    1) Counselor, in your professional opinion, is our voting system fool-proof and free of fraud?

    2) Counselor, in your professional opinion, is it possible for the dead to vote in North Carolina?

    3) Counselor, if our system is NOT fool-proof, and if it IS possible for someone to cast a ballot in the name of a deceased voter, why has that not been resolved.

    I'd really like to see these questions answered in a concise and timely manner.

  • apokalupsis says:
    Nov 05 at 20:07

    BTW Mr. Wright, you can post your reply directly here. Feel free to explain in detail how secure the vote is or is not, and suggest any improvements/enhancements you might recommend.

    The vote is the most hallowed right and most sacred responsibility any American possesses. Regardless of the generic explanations offered in defense of mistakes, not one vote should ever be fraudulent, miscounted, or omitted.

    Whether the "lost" ballot, misapplied vote, or overt fraud resulted in swinging an election or not, it's still a matter for concern. All that is required to collapse the entire system is to disenfranchise large portions of the electorate. Most of us recognize that has already happened.

    The stage has been set for a tiny minority to rule legally because of the withdrawal of the masses from the system of governance. Let's not diminish the vote and seal the deal.

    Tell us Mr. Wright, how to we restore confidence in our system and bring the masses back to proudly participate in choosing our leaders? I yield the floor to you….

  • Joyce McCloy says:
    Nov 05 at 21:25

    apokalupsis, it would be better if you emailed Don yourself. Or dig out the election code and check it in your spare time

    NC State Election Law and Policies are at this link
    http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=56
    There are over 600 pages of election law, and there are laws and procedures governing our voter registration database.

    Before you say I'm chums with NCSBoE, consider that I sued them in 2005. See http://www.ncvoter.net/legalactions.html

    I do not agree with everything the NC SBoE does, in particular the tallying procedures for IRV, which even Larry Leake said he's worried about.

    The best policy is when you see troublesome information, inquire with the State Board of Elections first to see if there is a reasonable answer.

  • apokalupsis says:
    Nov 09 at 12:20

    Chums? Why would I think that Joyce?

    Referring to the 600 pages of elections laws, I'm not nearly so concerned about the volumes of law, but more how they are applied.

    Yes, indeed I could simply contact Don Wright, but I suspect he is tired of corresponding with me for this year. He has fielded many inquiries originating at my desk, and some not so satisfactorily. I was merely offering you your chance at bat, and in the process giving Mr. Wright a forum for his opinions. Sorry if you found my efforts offensive.

  • Joyce McCloy says:
    Nov 09 at 14:31

    apokalupsis asked on Nov 5:
    "OK Joyce – fair enough. Don says there are no 110 year old voters. What he DID NOT say was why the data was not corrected prior to an election"

    Don Wright answered this in his email:
    "If these voters show up to vote, the pollworkers inquire as to their correct birth date and that information is added." ~ Don Wright.

    Your questions as to Don Wright's opinion on whether our system is "fool proof" and free of fraud are a straw man argument.

    Show us the evidence: If you or anyone – has evidence of fraud and widespread disenfranchisement, then I urge you to provide documentation and also
    file an official complaint to the State Board of Elections or to your county BoE. Additionally, forward that complaint to the media, and
    similarly you can post that evidence and complaint on a blog or website.

    On Nov 9 apokalupsis said:
    "I was merely offering you your chance at bat, and in the process giving Mr. Wright a forum for his opinions. Sorry if you found my efforts offensive"

    I have no time for straw man arguments, especially with an anonymous poster on the internet.

    THE MYTH: "110 Year Olds Vote Strong in NC" IS BUSTED.

  • Susan Myrick says:
    Nov 09 at 14:40

    I hope Ms. McCloy hasn't quit the conversation – I am getting ready to post a new blog about the 110 year olds who voted this year.

  • apokalupsis says:
    Nov 10 at 03:10

    Excellent Susan! Can't wait to read it.

    I can't help but find Joyce's last post a little comical. She sure had a lot to say for someone with no time to argue. At least she dismissed me politely.

    Isn't it interesting that it's up to me (in Joyce's mind anyway), a private citizen, to monitor the polls, quiz the community, and seek high and low for evidence of fraud when we established and funded the BOE to do exactly that?

    Oh wait…That's right! I remember now…Anytime a voter raises a concern the matter is dismissed as "an isolated incident", "voter error", or simply "a technical problem that has been corrected".

    The truth is, government officials and government employees have full control of equipment, policies, procedures, and oversight. If you trust them to be 100% accurate, 100% honest, and 100% transparent, then finally, FINALLY, we have a government agency that has broken the mold.

    If you instead think that there is potential for dishonesty, inaccuracy, or errors of omission, then you are part of an electorate that has finally begun paying attention to the process.

    Who would deem concern over a flawed system a "straw man argument". Who indeed?

    There is evidence all over the place and has been for years. Ever heard of Google or YouTube Joyce?

    The problem is, fraud is difficult to ferret out, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to prosecute. Laws have been designed to increase the improbability of such discoveries, and the expense in money and manpower makes pursuing all but the most egregious examples prohibitive.

    Think I made that up? Hardly. Got that last explanation from the lips of a government official last election cycle.

    Face it Joyce, we get scammed every election somewhere, somehow.

    Unless the electorate mobilizes into efficient blocs of scrutinizing brain trusts tasked with oversight of the overseers, the cycle will repeat unabated. People playing the system have been at it far too long to be undone by a few suspicious onlookers with the courage to speak out. Their voices will be swiftly muted, not unlike the way you attempted to tamp down mine.

  • Rightiswrong says:
    Oct 20 at 16:06

    Conservatives really hate the truth don't they- and when they don't get to lie, they pout or throw a tantrum. Every argument i have with a conservative involves them stomping off without a rebuttal and then calling me a lesbian (won't my hubby be shocked) but tactics like that worked for them on the playground so…and thanks Joyce for correcting yet another hyperbolized lie of the right

  • Rob Jones says:
    Jun 03 at 10:27

    @ Rightiswrong….there is a difference (IMO) in 'willful ignorance' and 'blissful/benighted ignorance'. To TRY and persuade people into believing that there is not rampant voter fraud is disingenuous at best. To say that rampant voter fraud does not exist does not make it go away.
    One of the tactics used by the Leftists is to OVERWHELM the Voter Registar's office with new voter registrations right before (about 3 weeks prior) to an election. Ever heard of ACORN? This way the local Voter Registar's office can not feasibly VERIFY very many of the new registrants BEFORE the election and the Leftist know that virtually nothing will be done to them after the election once the vote(s) have been cast.
    "Remember too, that to come out a winner, you don’t have to perpetrate the fraud everywhere. All you need to do is win in key legislative districts and by small margins." This is exactly what the current White House occupant did to steal the 2008 election primary from Hillary Clinton even though she had won the POPULAR vote.
    "OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS VUNERABLE to corruption from beginning to end. These vulnerabilities are NOW BEING EXPLOITED by groups who intentionally subvert our systems to serve their purposes. The BEST SOLUTION is a well-organized national volunteer program that INSPIRES AND EQUIPS CITIZENS to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters. That program is TRUE THE VOTE.
    FIND OUT MORE AT: http://WWW.TRUETHEVOTE.ORG

  • George Greene says:
    Sep 06 at 18:45

    But Don Wright's reply means that being an ignorant liar is not enough to disqualify Sue Myrick from being a Congresswoman. In THAT case, once we've swallowed THAT elephant, then why should we have any trouble with "being 110" not disqualifying you from ….

  • George Greene says:
    Sep 06 at 18:47

    @Rob Jones Rampant voter fraud (in NC anyway) does not exist. My just saying it couldn't make it go away, but NEITHER COULD ANYTHING ELSE, SINCE IT WASN'T THERE to start with.

    What is it going to make PROVABLY FALSE ALLEGATIONS of voter fraud (which provably DO exist — YOU GUYS KEEP proving it Every month) go away??

    I think they all their lies are designed to provoke us into agreeing to some exception clauses vs. the 1st amendment.

  • Barbara says:
    Oct 25 at 01:51

    Has anyone else heard of the machines that when you Vote for Rommney the machine cast a vote for obama? I saw that this morning , supposedly it is in NC.

  • Lee says:
    Nov 06 at 00:08

    OK,that would explain the 110y/o voters Joyce,but what about the ones that are 154 and 160?I think somebody came up with a plauseable EXCUSE to coverup for the voter fraud that is going on that they have NO intention of doing anything to stop !!!

12 Trackbacks